This paper examines the public views - a total of 10,348 persons - on restrictions of personal autonomy of others to protect the interest of children. We use representative country samples of the adult populations of Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, and Spain, and ask them to consider an experimental vignette with three different parental conditions: substance abuse, mental health problems, and learning difficulties. The findings display that most people would restrict parental freedom to protect the child, and a stricter restriction when the parent struggles with substance abuse compared to mental health compared to learning difficulties. There are some country differences, and when examining the role of institutional context of child protective system, a correlation is detected with significant differences between population views in a right-oriented system versus a well-being system and maltreatment system. In light of the ongoing European debates about child protection and how controversial and contested this area of the welfare state seem to be, it is interesting to learn (also) from this study that people, across countries, individual differences, child protection systems, overall are supportive of state intervention and support in a situation with a child at potential risk.

The importance of shared decision-making (SDM) in youth care is increasingly emphasised. Professional reflection on the decision-making process is an important means to improve the use of SDM in practice. In this study, we report on the development of a reflection tool for youth professionals primarily to use when they hold a different opinion then parents about referral to specialised youth care services. In co-creation with local youth professionals and parent representatives from the South of the Netherlands, the tool was developed and tested in practice. This process was guided by a three-stage cyclical research project. First, reflective group discussions provided an initial understanding of professionals' needs, interests and experiences. This input then was analysed and documented into a draft tool with reflective questions. Next, this tool was tested on fictive and real life cases and adjusted with input from youth professionals and parents. This process resulted in an online reflection tool covering 16 overarching reflective questions to support youth professionals' reflection on their shared decision-making in practice. The tool can be used and adapted by others in the field of youth care to improve the process of making shared decisions with parents in complex cases.

Why is it that some care order cases result in the child being removed from parental care, while in others she is not, despite the cases being similar? This paper investigates how decision-makers reason and justify different outcomes for similar cases, by an analysis of four pairs of judgments (from Norway, Estonia, and Finland) about care orders, using thematic analysis. The comparison is within the pairs and not across countries. I find that the variance in outcome and reasoning seems to be a result of discretionary evaluations: risk, cooperation of the parents, and the potential of services to alleviate the situation are interpreted differently in the cases and lead to different outcomes. This appears to be a legitimate use of the discretionary space available to the decision-makers. The decisions are justified with 'good reasons' mostly related to threshold, the least intrusive intervention principle, and the best interests of the child. Such justifications are suitable to provide accountability and legitimacy, but the reasoning is at times lacking transparency and thoroughness. The reasoning is longer in the non-removal cases, suggesting that more thorough reasoning is required when the decision-makers depart from the most common outcome.